Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1523/2009

Lalit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./1523/2009                                Dated:

In the matter of:

SH. LALIT KUMAR

S/o Sh. Sodan singh,

R/o H.NO. G-111/540 feet road,

M.B.Extn.,

New Delhi-110044.

 

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

The Manager,

M/s. Royal Sunderam Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Ist Floor, 1505-1506, 6 Ambadeep Building,

K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001

 

The Regional Manager,

M/s. Royal Sunderam Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Northern Regional Office,

Signature Towers, 9^th Floor,

Tower-2, South City INII 8,

Gurgaon-122001, Haryana

               .... OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

ORDER

 

The repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant by the OP insurance company has led the complainant to file the present complaint, claiming the relief of release of the insured amount of Rs. 600,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% and Rs. 100,000/- for mental agony and harassment from the date of claim to its realisation. The OP insurance company has contested the complaint and filed reply contesting the claim of the complainant and praying for dismissal of the complaint. In the rejoinder the complainant has denied the averments made in the reply of the OP and has reaffirmed the facts stated in the complaint.

 

In support of his case, the complaint has filed his affidavit in evidence. On behalf of the OP insurance company, the affidavit in evidence of Mr G. Vinay Parkash, Senior Executive-Legal with the OP insurance company, is filed. Both parties have filed written arguments and have relied upon the same instead of oral arguments. Earlier, after hearing the arguments on 17/7/2015 the complaint was reserved for final order. But before the order could be passed, the then learned President and one learned Member of this District Forum retired, leading to fixing of the matter for rearguments.

 

We have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties, record of the case and relevant provisions of law.

 

The basic facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the complainant had availed Private car package policy bearing number VPC 0096694000100 in respect of his vehicle bearing number. DL 3CAE 2869 from the OP insurance company for the period of one year from 2/1/2009 to 2/1/2010. Undisputedly complainant has lodged a claim with the OP insurance company, stating that his insured vehicle was stolen on 29/1/2009 and after receiept of the claimant's intimation the matter was got investigated by the OP insurance company by in-house investigation. It is also admitted in pleadings that the vehicle in question was given on rent/hire by the complainant to one Metro City Cab by the deed of agreement executed on 8/12/2000 on a monthly rental/hire price of rupees. 24,000/-. It is also not disputed that the complainant has lodged an FIR alleging that the person to whom the cab in question is given by him on hire, or rent has stolen it. It is also not disputed that the OP insurance company has repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant, by letter dated 22/5/2009 on the ground that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose at the time of loss, thereby violating the provisions of "Limitations as to use" of the policy.

 

In the backdrop of the above admitted position the contention on behalf of the complainant is that the vehicle was stolen by the M/S Metro City Cab and other accused persons against whom FIR No. 56/2009, dated 24/2/2009 at PS Janak Puri was lodged. The theft has occurred during the validity period of the insurance policy in question. So, the complainant is entitled to the insurance claim, as claimed by him from the OP insurance company.

 

The contention on behalf of the OP is that the insurance policy in question and insurance certificate in question was issued to the OP, with regard to vehicle in question subject to terms and conditions attached to it. It is argued that The Certificate of Insurance and Policy Schedule clearly specify the limitations as to use of the vehicle. According to these limitation as to use, the policy covers the vehicle for any purpose other than Clause (a) Hire or Reward, etc. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim from the OP insurance company.

 

There is great in the argument on behalf of the OP that The Certificate of Insurance and Policy Schedule clearly specifies the limitations as to use of the vehicle. According to these limitations as to use the policy covers the vehicle for any purpose other than Hire or Reward, etc. When admittedly, the complainant had given the insured vehicle in question on hire, or rent at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month to one M/S Metro City Cab the said term of the policy stood violated by the complainant rendering the insurance policy in question inapplicable, so far as the claim of reimbursement made by the complainant. Another point which emerges from admitted pleadings, and documents of the parties is that the complainant has taken the vehicle in question and had let it on hire basis for commercial purpose. Nowhere in the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that he has done this for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. Therefore, Explanation to Section 2 (d) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not attracted to the present complaint and the complainant. The complainant, therefore, is not a consumer within the meaning of said provision of law. Needless to say that only that person who falls within the meaning of "consumer" as defined in Section 2 (d) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is entitled to file a complaint before the consumer fora for redressal of his grievances under the said Act. The complaint, therefore, has no merits.

 

In view of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own cost of litigation. A copy of this order be sent to both parties, free of cost by registered post. This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).

File be consigned to record room.            

Pronounced in open Forum on 17.05.2016.

 

 

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                            (H M VYAS)

MEMBER